1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Andre L. Verdun, ESQ. (SBN 265436) CROWLEY LAW GROUP 401 West A Street, Ste 925 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel. (619) 238-5700 Fax. (866) 786-6993 andreverdun@crowleylawgroup.com Attorney for Plaintiff Jessie Verdun

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JESSIE VERDUN, Plaintiff, vs. CALIFORNIA BUSINESS BUREAU, and DOES 1-10 Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case No.:

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, JESSIE VERDUN, alleges the following: INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiff went to a hospital in 2013 to obtain needed emergency medical service. Though he checked in with the hospital and provided his name and personal contract information, he was never treated. In fact, he was left to sit without any examination or treatment for hours. Finally, he left. 2. Plaintiff never entered into a contract with the emergency room, and did not receive any services creating an implied contract. As such, he owed no debt. Oddly, the emergency room still sent Plaintiff a bill. When he refused to pay, they hired a debt collector to collect the debt. This debt collector demanded money Plaintiff did not owe; added interest without a legal right to do so; and engaged in annoying, abusive, and harassing conduct directed at Plaintiff.
-1-

COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

3. According to 15 U.S.C. 1692: (a) There is abundant evidence of the use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices by many debt collectors. Abusive debt collection practices contribute to the number of personal bankruptcies, to marital instability, to the loss of jobs, and to invasions of individual privacy. (b) Existing laws and procedures for redressing these injuries are inadequate to protect consumers. (c) Means other than misrepresentation or other abusive debt collection practices are available for the effective collection of debts. (d) Abusive debt collection practices are carried on to a substantial extent in interstate commerce and through means and instrumentalities of such commerce. Even where abusive debt collection practices are purely intrastate in character, they nevertheless directly affect interstate commerce. (e) It is the purpose of this title to eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors, to insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt collection practices are not competitively disadvantaged, and to promote consistent State action to protect consumers against debt collection abuses. PARTIES 4. JESSIE VERDUN (Plaintiff) is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a natural person residing in the State of California. 5. California Business Bureau, Inc. (CBB) is a debt collector. CBBs conduct is regulated by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act codified under Title 15 USC 1692 et seq and the California Rosenthal Act (Cal. Civ. Sec. 1788 et seq). Defendant conducts business inside the County of San Diego. 6. Defendant and defendants refer to all defendants, name and unnamed, as plaintiff alleges each are jointly and severally liable for the conduct alleged herein. 7. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, of defendants DOES 1-10 inclusive, are unknown to plaintiff who, therefore, sues said defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to show their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of said defendants is responsible in some manner for the
-2-

COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

events and happenings, and proximately caused the injuries and damages, hereinafter alleged. 8. Plaintiff will file an amended complaint if the true names and capacities of other now unknown defendants, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise become known to plaintiff. JURISDICTION 9. Jurisdiction of this court arises pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 15 U.S.C. 1692(k), and 28 U.S.C. 1367 for supplemental state claims. 10. This action arises out of the defendants' violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq. ("FDCPA"). Since defendants do business within California, there is personal jurisdiction. VENUE 11. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391. Defendant resides in the County of San Diego. At all times relevant, the defendants conducted business within the State of California. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 12. Plaintiff Jessie Verdun is being pursued for a medical bill he denies he owed. The alleged debt was supposedly incurred when Plaintiff sought medical treatment in the County of Ventura, but left the treatment facility after an extended wait time without ever being seen or treated. Plaintiff did not sign a contract nor did he receive services. Nonetheless, he received a bill. 13. CBB called Plaintiff on his cell phone on numerous occasions. Plaintiff stated that he did not owe the debt, would not pay the debt, and demanded that Defendant stop calling. CBB continued to place calls to Plaintiff on his cell phone. This conduct violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and 1692(d) and 1788.17 and 1788.11. 14. CBB placed multiple calls a day to Plaintiff, almost every day for about a month. These calls had both the natural consequences and were in fact made with the intent to annoy, harass and/or abuse Plaintiff. On approximately two occasions, Plaintiff
-3-

COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

demanded to speak with a supervisor to make the calls end. Plaintiff was hung up on when these demands were made. Plaintiff called back and stated he wanted to make a complaint with management, and CBB hung up on Plaintiff. Consequently, CBB would continue to call Plaintiff. This conduct is unfair, abusive, harassing in violation of 1692(d), 1692(f), 1692(f)(1), and Rosenthal sections 1788.11, 1788.17. 15. On numerous discussions the CBB had with Plaintiff, Plaintiff told CBB that they did not have permission to record the phone calls between CBB and Plaintiff. Regardless, CBB continued to record the discussions between itself and Plaintiff. Later, when Plaintiff asked if the calls were being recorded, CBB stated it was because they could not turn off the recorder. This demonstrates an unfair debt collection practice, in violation of 1692(f), and a violation of California Penal Code section 632(a). 16. On or about December 23, 2013, someone other than the Plaintiff called CBB to obtain information about the account believing it was theirs. This third party was unauthorized by Plaintiff to discuss Plaintiffs alleged account. This third party was told after providing some personal information that he was not the account holder, but CBB informed this person that they were willing to give this third party the account balance in case this person wanted to pay the account. CBB offered to give this unauthorized third party Plaintiffs balance so that the third party could provide payment. CBB stated it could provide no other information than the account balance since they discovered together the account belonged to Plaintiff. CBB then proceeded to provide information to a third party without Plaintiffs consent, a court order, or a judgment. This conduct violated 15 U.S.C. 1692c. 17. On or about December 26, 2013, CBB sent a letter to Plaintiff. Plaintiff received that letter on or about December 30th, 2013. The letter that Plaintiff received demanded payment $186.00 plus $25.19 in interest. 18. The amount of $186 constitutes an amount not owed in which Defendant is seeking to collect. Since Plaintiff never signed a contract nor obtained services from Defendant,

-4-

COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

nor their client, neither had the legal right to demand payment in the amount of $186. This demand violates 15 U.S.C. 1692f(1) and 15 U.S.C. 1692f. 19. Also, since Plaintiff did not have a valid contract with Defendant nor the original creditor, and because neither the defendant nor the original creditor had obtained a judgment against Plaintiff, and because there is no provision under the law that provides that Defendant could legally seek interest, the demand for interest is illegal. This demand violates 15 U.S.C. 1692f(1) and 15 U.S.C. 1692f. 20. CBB reported to the credit reporting agencies that Plaintiff owed the debt it was trying to collect. Plaintiff did not owe the debt. By reporting that Plaintiff owed a debt, Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. 1692e(8). 21. Defendant writes on the letter that the [Rosenthal Act] requires that you notify your creditor of your change of name, address, or employment for any existing consumer credit. This statement was made to mislead Plaintiff into believing she had an obligation to notify the document of her name, address and existing employment, which is all untrue. 22. In Gonzales v. Arrow Fin. Services, LLC, 660 F. 3d 1055, 1063 (9th Cir. 2011), the Ninth Circuit has also held that a literally true statement can still be misleading. Id. at 1062. (Citing to Brown, 464 F.3d at 455; Avila v. Rubin, 84 F.3d 222, 22627 (7th Cir.1996)). 23. California Civil code section 1788.2(i) defines a creditor as a person who extends consumer credit to a debtor. Since the original debtor in this case is not a bank or a lender, but instead a healthcare provider, the original creditor is not a creditor. 24. While it is true that if Plaintiff completed a creditor card application with a creditor, and if the creditor notified Plaintiff of her obligations to update information, Plaintiff is required to keep the information updated under California Civil Code section 1788.21. Here, Defendant is collecting on behalf of a person who is not a creditor and Plaintiff did not complete a credit application; therefore, Plaintiff is not required to keep the information up-to-date. Defendant intends to mislead Plaintiff for their benefit.

-5-

COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

25. Therefore, while the statement Defendant placed on its letter to Plaintiff is technically true, it is false and misleading as applied to Plaintiff, and therefore violates 1692(f), 1692e, 1692e(10), and Cal. Civ. Sec. 1788.17. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION RFDCPA (California Civil Code section 1788 et seq.) 26. Plaintiffs reaffirm and reallege paragraphs above herein as if specifically set forth more fully herein below. 27. Defendants are included in the class of entities whose debt collection activities are regulated under California Civil Code section 1788 et seq. as defined by California Civil Code 1788.2(c). 28. Plaintiffs are person[s] as defined by California Civil Code 1788.2(g). 29. This case involves money, property or their equivalent, due or owing or alleged to be due or owing from a natural person by reason of a consumer transaction. As such, this action arises out of a consumer debt as those terms are defined by California Civi l Code 1788.2(f). 30. The foregoing acts and omissions constitute numerous and multiple violations of California Civil Code section 1788 et seq., including but not limited to Cal. Civ. Code section 1788.17 and 1788.11. 31. It is believed that other violations of 1788 et seq. have been violated and if discovered during the process of discovery Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to allege the specific allegations setting forth the violations. 32. As a result of violation of California Civil Code 1788 et seq. plaintiffs are entitled to statutory damages in the amount of $1,000, actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial from defendants, and attorney fees and cost. 33. Plaintiff also seeks additional damages provided under 1788.17. 34. Plaintiffs did suffer actual damages; inter ailia, legal fees incurred trying to protect their interest, adverse effects to their health, distress, aggravation and anxiety suffered by the plaintiffs, interest and penalties incurred from barrowing from their savings, all as a result of defendants conduct.
-6-

COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FDCPA (Title 15 USC 1692 et seq.) 35. Plaintiffs reaffirms and realleges paragraphs above herein as if specifically set forth more fully herein below. 36. Defendants are debt collectors as defined by 15 USC 1692a(6). 37. Plaintiff is a consumer as defined by 15 USC section 1692c(d) and 15 USC 1692a(3). 38. These financial obligations were primarily for personal, family or household purposes and are therefore a "debt" as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. 1692a(5). 39. The foregoing acts and omissions constitute numerous and multiple violations of the FDCPA, including, but not limited to: a. Engaging in conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse Plaintiff (1692d)); b. Using false, deceptive, or misleading representations or means in connection with collection of a debt (1692e); c. Using false representations and deceptive practices in connection with collection of an alleged debt from Plaintiff (1692e(10); d. Using unfair or unconscionable means against Plaintiff in connection with an attempt to collect a debt (1692f); and e. Disclosing to a third party the existence of the debt allegedly owed by Plaintiff ( 1692b(2) & 1692c(b)). f. By reporting that Plaintiff owed a debt, Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. 1692e(8). 40. It is believed that other violations of 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq. have been violated and if discovered during the process of discovery Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to allege the specific allegations setting forth the violations. 41. Section 1692f prohibits a debt collector from using unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. 15 U.S.C. 1692f. In addition to the general ban on unfair or unconscionable means, this section expr essly prohibits [t]he
-7-

COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

collection of any amount (including any interest, fee, charge, or expense incidental to the principal obligation) unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law. 15 U.S.C. 1692f(1). This was violated. 42. As a result of each and every violation of the FDCPA, the plaintiffs are entitled to any actual damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1692k(a)(1) including inter ailia, legal fees incurred trying to protect their interest, adverse effects to their health, distress, aggravation and anxiety suffered by the plaintiffs, interest and penalties incurred from barrowing from their savings, all as a result of defendants conduct; statutory damages in an amount up to $1,000.00 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1692k(a)(2)(A); and reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1692k(a)(3) from each and every defendant, jointly and severally. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION INTRUSION UPON SECLUSION 43. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference all of the paragraphs above as though fully stated herein. 44. The foregoing acts of Defendants as described herein constitute an invasion of the Plaintiffs privacy and an intrusion upon his right of seclusion. 45. Plaintiff has a common law right to, and a reasonable expectation of privacy, his home and place of employment, and in regard to his private affairs. 46. Defendants abusive and improper collection practices in the collection of this debt constituted a substantial invasion upon Plaintiffs seclusion and privacy, and would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. 47. Defendants intended to cause emotional distress, and/or engaged in reckless disregard of the probability of causing Plaintiffs emotional distress. 48. As a proximate result of Defendants conduct, Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount to be determined by proof and a finder of fact at trial. 49. Defendants acted with oppression, fraud, and/or malice, thereby entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount according to proof and a finder of fact at trial. ///
-8-

COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION - TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

50. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges and incorporates by reference all other paragraphs. 51. At all times relevant to this complaint, the Plaintiff was and is a person as defined by the TCPA 47 U.S.C. 153(32). 52. At all times relevant to this complaint, the Defendant has owned, operated, and or controlled customer premises equipment as defined by the TCPA 47 U.S.C. 153(14) that originated, routed, and/or terminated telecommunications. 53. The Defendant at all times relevant to the complaint herein engages in telecommunications defined by the TCPA U.S.C 153(43). 54. The Defendant at all times relevant to the complaint herein engages in interstate communications by the TCPA U.S.C. 153(22). 55. At all times relevant to this complaint, the Cross-Defendant has used, controlled, and/or operated wire communications as defined by the TCPA 47 U.S.C. 153(52), that existed as instrumentalities of interstate and intrastate commerce. 56. At all times relevant to this complaint, the Cross-Defendant has used, controlled, and/or operated automatic telephone dialing systems as defined by the TCPA 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(1) and 47 C.F.R. 64.1200 (f) (1). 57. Defendants violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(A), by using an automatic telephone dialing system to telephone a cellular phone, without Plaintiffs consent. 58. Defendants violations were willful and knowing. 59. As a result of these violations of the TCPA, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for statutory damages, including treble damages. 60. Defendants engaged in willful and knowing violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(A). 61. Defendants used an automated dialing system and pre-recorded messages to telephone Plaintiffs cellular telephone, without his consent. 62. Defendants acts were willful, intentional and knowing.
-9-

COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

63. Defendants acted with oppression, fraud, and/or malice, thereby entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount according to proof and a finder of fact at trial. 64. Plaintiff is entitled to recover actual and punitive damages. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION - NEGLIGENCE 65. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference all of the paragraphs above as though fully stated herein. 66. Defendants outrageous, abusive and intrusive acts as described herein constituted negligent infliction of emotional distress. 67. Plaintiff suffered (1) serious emotional distress, (2) actually and proximately caused by (3) wrongful conduct (4) by a defendant who should have foreseen that the conduct would cause such distress. 68. Defendants conduct as described herein was wrongful conduct in that the Defendants conducted their business in an abusive, oppressive, and harassing manner. 69. Defendants actions and omissions as described herein constitute negligence in that Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care in the collection of the alleged debt, the use of the telephone in an attempt to collect such debts, said duties were breached, and said breach was the proximate cause of damages suffered by Plaintiff. 70. Defendants owed a duty to refrain from outrageous and unlawful telephone calls in connection with their attempts to collect a debt. 71. Defendants actions and omissions demonstrate a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others, and constitute despicable conduct that subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregards of his rights. 72. Plaintiff suffered damages due to Defendants actions in an amount to be determined at trial. 73. Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages for the actions and omissions of the Defendants as described herein. /// ///
-10-

COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION - Unlawful Recording of Confidential Communications (Violation of California Penal Code 632) 74. Plaintiff incorporates each allegation set forth above as if fully set forth herein and further alleges as follows. 75. Plaintiff was called by Defendant recording private financial matters. 76. Defendant intentionally made use of a telephonic system that enabled them to secretly record telephone conversations between Plaintiff and Defendants agents. 77. Plaintiff was secretly recorded by Defendants. 78. Defendants did not advise or inform Plaintiff that their telephonic communications with the Defendant would be recorded. Defendants did not obtain, and could not have obtained, Plaintiff express or implied advance consent to record such conversations without ever informing them that their calls were being recorded. 79. Defendants calls made to and from Plaintiff have been surreptitiously recorded by Defendants, and those discussions were confidential communications within the meaning of California Penal Code 632(c) in that Plaintiff desired and expected the telephone communications to be confined to the parties thereto and not recorded and/or further disseminated. Plaintiff had an objectively reasonable expectation that their calls were not being recorded. Plaintiff's expectation of privacy was objectively reasonable because they were never informed that their calls were being monitored and/or recorded and their consent for monitoring or recording was never sought. 80. Without advising Plaintiff that their telephonic communications were being recorded, Defendants intentionally recorded their telephone calls with Plaintiff and Class members in violation of California Penal Code 632( a). 81. Without obtaining express or implied advance consent to record such conversations, Defendants intentionally recorded their telephone conversations with Plaintiff in violation of California Penal Code 632( a). 82. Under Penal Code 637.2, Plaintiff is entitled to $5,000 in statutory damages per violation, even in the absence of proof of actual damages, an amount deemed proper by
-11-

COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

the California Legislature. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION - Unlawful Recording of Confidential Communications (Violation of California Penal Code 632.7) 83. Plaintiff incorporates each allegation set forth above as if fully set forth herein and further alleges as follows. 84. Plaintiff participated in telephone conversations with Defendant recording personal financial matters. Plaintiff used his cellular telephone to engage in the conversation. 85. At all times relevant herein, Defendant intentionally made use of a telephonic system that enabled them to secretly record conversations between Plaintiff using cellular or cordless telephones and Defendant. 86. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, Plaintiff's cellular or cordless telephone conversations with the Defendant were secretly recorded by Defendants. 87. Defendants did not advise or inform Plaintiff that their cellular or cordless telephonic communications with the Defendant would be recorded. Defendants did not obtain, and could not have obtained, Plaintiff s express or implied advance consent to record such conversations without ever informing them that their calls were being recorded. 88. Without advising Plaintiff that their cellular or cordless telephone communications with Defendants were being recorded, Defendants intentionally recorded cellular or cordless telephone calls in violation of California Penal Code 632.7(a). 89. Without obtaining express or implied advance consent to record such conversations, Defendants intentionally recorded Plaintiff's cellular and/or wireless telephone conversations with them in violation of California Penal Code 632.7(a). 90. Under Penal Code 637.2, Plaintiff is entitled to $5,000 in statutory damages per violation, even in the absence of proof of actual damages, an amount deemed proper by the California Legislature.

-12-

COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that judgment be entered against the Defendants for the following: A. Statutory and actual damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1692k; B. Statutory and actual damages pursuant to California Civil Code 1788.17 and 1788.30; C. Costs and reasonable attorneys fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1692k, California Civil Code 1788.17 and Civil Code 1788.30; D. Statutory and actual damages pursuant to Cal. Penal Code section 637.2 for violation of Penal Code 632(a) and 632.7; E. Actual and punitive damages; F. Treble damages under Civil Code 3345; G. Award statutory damages in the amount of $500.00 for each violation of the

TCPA against all of the Defendants, and/or treble damages for each willful or knowing violation of the TCPA pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(3)(B); and,
H. For such other and further relief as may just and proper.

Dated this: January 6, 2014 /s/ Andre L. Verdun___ Andre L. Verdun Attorney for the Plaintiff JESSIE VERDUN DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL NOW COMES Plaintiff, JESSIE VERDUN, by and through his attorney, Andre L. Verdun, and hereby demands a trial by jury in the above-captioned matter.

Dated this: January 6, 2014 /s/ Andre L. Verdun___ Andre L. Verdun Attorney for the Plaintiff JESSIE VERDUN

-13-

COMPLAINT